it would be 3 lines
~all of the information is in lines 2 and 3, so you’d get all of the info on the first screen if you nix line 1.~edit: not sure what I was thinking—thanks, Slider
For those who care, it’s open source and you can host your own server from a docker image. (In addition to the normal “just click buttons on our website and pay us some money to host a server for you” option)
I think that to get the type of the agent, you need to apply a fixpoint operator. This also happens inside the proof of Löb for constructing a certain self-referential sentence.(As a breadcrumb, I’ve heard that this is related to the Y combinator.)
I think this is a typo
Who do you suppose will buy them?
My knee-jerk reaction to the argument was negative, but now I’m confused enough to say something.
If the contract is trading for M$p, then the “arbitrage” of “buy a share of yes and cause the contract to settle to 1″ nets you M$(1-p) per share. Pushing up the price reduces the incentive for a new player to hit the arb.
If you sell the contract, you are paying someone to press the button and hoping they do not act on their incentive.
An interesting plot twist: after you buy the contract, your incentive has changed—instead of the M$(1-p) available before purchase, you now have an incentive of a full M$1 for the button to be pushed rather than not (which maybe translates to a somewhat lower incentive to personally push the button, but I’m not sure that’s the right comparison)
Can you say more about what you mean by “steering mechanisms”? Is it something like “outer loop of an optimization algorithm”?How complex of a computation do you expect to need in order to find an example where cut activations express something that’s hard to find in layer activations?
Money in the account per year is not fuzzy; it is literally a scalar for which the ground truth is literally a number stored in a computer.
If you convince people to live there, then there’s more places for people to live and the population growth rate goes up. Many folks care about this goal, though idk whether it’s interesting to you specifically.
Writing my dating profile was a good use of my time before I shared it with anybody. I had an insufficiently strong sense of what kind of relationship I want and why other people might want to have it with me. The exercise of “make a freeform document capturing all of that” was very helpful for focusing my mind towards figuring it out—much moreso than the exercise of “fill in dating app textboxes in a way that seems competitive for the swiping game”. (This is just a special case of “writing an essay teaches you a lot”—something I’d like to take advantage of more often)
It took about 1 workday of writing effort to put mine together, and it’s resulted in 2 high-quality dates (order of 10k micromarriages) in the past 5 months. This is competitive with the rest of my current tools for turning effort into dating prospects.
Which trade are you advocating for? “long crypto”? Reversion? (akak “buying the dip”) Long ETH vs. short BTC?
All of these are plausible opinions, and it’s not crazy to allocate some of your portfolio based on them—but a trade consists of a price and a size. Do you think you should have 0.1% of your net worth in ETH or 30%? Does that change if ETH goes to 100 or 3000 next week? Do your arguments apply equally well elsewhere? (solana?)
It’s a piece of fiction about someone using a funky language model tool to write autobiographical fiction.
If you launch the nukes, you also die, and we spend a lot of time worrying about that. Why?
So you have a crisp concept called “unbounded utility maximizer” so that some AI systems are, some AI systems aren’t, and the ones that aren’t are safe. Your plan is to teach everyone where that sharp conceptual boundary is, and then what? Convince them to walk back over the line and stay there?
Do you think your mission is easier or harder than nuclear disarmament?
I think I get what you’re saying now; let me try to rephrase. We want to grow the “think good and do good” community. We have a lot of let’s say “recruitment material” that appeals to people’s sense of do-gooding, so unaligned people that vaguely want to do good might trip over the material and get recruited. But we have less of that on the think-gooding side, so there’s a larger gap of unaligned people who want to think good that we could recruit.
Does that seem right?
Where does the Atlas fellowship fall on your scale of “recruits do-gooders” versus “recruits think-gooders”?
I think the most important claim you make here is that trying to fit into a cultural niche called “rationality” makes you a more effective researcher than trying to fit into a cultural niche called “EA”. I think this is a plausible claim, (e.g. I feel this way about doing a math or philosophy undergrad degree over doing an economics or computer science undergrad degree) but I don’t intuitively agree with it. Do you have any arguments in favor?
Pushing which button? They’re deploying systems and competing on how capable those systems are. How do they know the systems they’re deploying are safe? How do they define “not-unbounded-utility-maximizers” (and why is it not a solution to the whole alignment problem)? What about your “alignment-pilled” world is different from today’s world, wherein large institutions already prefer not to kill themselves?
How does that distinguish between AGI and not-yet-AGI? How does that prevent an arms race?
Is there any concrete proposal that meets your specification? “don’t kill yourself with AGI, please”?